5.  On 31 October 2002 Ţara published an article entitled “While ignoring the legislation on fair competition, the Stepaniuc clan is taking away the property of others by blackmail”. It reported by partly citing and partly summarising a letter addressed to the President of Moldova by a transport company, which used to operate several bus lines linking Chişinău with other towns. The article read, inter alia, as follows:
“The other day Ţara received a document with a very interesting content. It is a letter addressed to President Vladimir Voronin by the managers of company F. located in Ialoveni. According to its authors, the company ... had been providing transport services and employing some 150 employees ... High-ranking individuals from the top of the power structure asked them to yield the Chişinău-Ialoveni route on the ground that “ours also need to work”. As a result, the company's revenues decreased and 32 people were left without employment. That is what the letter says.
We are not sure that things happened exactly like that; however, Ţara and other newspapers have written about some strange goings-on with the Chişinău-Ialoveni route.
... the following passages from the letter are translated from Russian: 'The elections (of 25 February 2001) came. Knowing how we have been treated by the [former government], we supported the Communist Party, provided them on a daily basis with 3-4 transportation units and generated publicity in their favour using our own money. We were very glad that the truth had triumphed, and that from then on we would work only in accordance with the law, as they had promised in their election campaign. However, it appears that those were only empty words ...
At the end of June 2002, Victor Stepaniuc, the leader of the Communist Faction of Parliament, telephoned A.C., the Minister of Public Transport and Roads, and asked that F.'s bus lines be taken away from it and given to [two other companies], whose owners were Victor Stepaniuc's nephew and son-in-law.'
Due to lack of space we will limit the details of the letter and will summarise it: the minister complied. The ensuing complaints were fruitless ... and F.'s buses were replaced with [other buses]. Cover was also provided, according to the authors, by the Traffic Police. The whole thing was conducted by Victor Stepaniuc's son-in-law.
The authors' last hope lies with the President of the Country and they ask him to put an end to the abuses and punish the corrupt public officials. We wonder when somebody will write to the President about similar abuses within the distribution network of the Chişinău Tobacco Company, where Victor Stepaniuc is presently getting ahead by eliminating his competitors using Bolshevik methods.”
6.  On 21 November 2002 Ţara published another article entitled “Bolshevik habits. The Stepaniuc clan spreads its tentacles”. It stated, inter alia, the following:
“The article of 31 October 2002 ... has not provoked any reaction from any State authority. I wonder why the Communist authorities do not react to serious allegations made by the media ...
In that article I wrote about irregularities in the field of public transport caused by companies G. and T. headed by the son-in-law and nephew of Victor Stepaniuc, the leader of the Communist Faction from Parliament. ...
Our newspaper was visited recently by other drivers from Chişinău Bus Depot No. 1 with similar complaints. After failing to obtain satisfaction from the courts, the people come to our newspaper for help. However, we are not all-powerful. The only thing that we can do is to sound the alarm on illegalities in the hope that those in charge will put an end to them.
The drivers who visited us asked us to clarify how company T. had obtained licences for the same bus routes which they run... I cite from their letter: 'company T., with support from Parliament, something about which it sometimes expressly brags, can solve any problem. Its drivers work outside any timetable and their buses leave 10-15 minutes ahead of us on purpose. Any protests on our part are useless due to the support in employs from Parliament.'
Their statements are confirmed by an official report by a local transport authority, confirming the abuses of company T. ... [and stating that] the activity of company T. seriously perturbs the normal circulation of buses on the Chişinău – Malcoci and Chişinău – Condrita routes.
What timetables are we talking about when the father-in-law and the uncle occupy such high positions? While writing this article I contacted I.G., the chief engineer from Chişinău Bus Depot No. 1, to ask him whether the situation has improved. He told me that on the contrary it is becoming worse and worse.
Thus, the Stepaniuc clan spreads its tentacles. How far? For how long?”
7.  On an unspecified date Victor Stepaniuc brought civil defamation proceedings against the newspaper and against the author of the article. He argued, inter alia, that the article of 31 October 2002 contained the following statements which were untrue and defamatory of him:
“... At the end of June 2002, Victor Stepaniuc, the leader of the Communist Faction of Parliament, telephoned A.C., the Minister of Public Transport and Roads, and asked that F.'s bus lines be taken away from it and given to [two other companies], whose owners were Victor Stepaniuc's nephew and son-in-law. ... the minister complied... We wonder when somebody will write to the President about similar abuses within the distribution network of the Chişinău Tobacco Company, where Victor Stepaniuc is presently getting ahead by eliminating his competitors using Bolshevik methods.
8.  According to him, the meaning and wording of the article of 21 November 2002 contained the following defamatory statements implying that:
“ in my capacity as an MP and leader of the Communist Faction of Parliament, I offer cover for the illegal actions of third parties in respect of the circulation of buses between Chişinău and some villages in Ialoveni county. 'Thus, the Stepaniuc clan spreads its tentacles. How far? For how long'?”
9.  On 24 January 2003 the Buiucani District Court found in favour of Victor Stepaniuc, finding that he could not be held responsible for the activity of the companies owned by his nephew and his son-in-law, particularly since the State authorities had not found any illegalities in their activity and had not withdrawn their licences. No link between the activity of Victor Stepaniuc in his capacity as an MP and leader of a parliamentary group and the activity of those companies had been established. The court found the passages complained of by the plaintiff to be defamatory and ordered the newspaper and the author to pay Victor Stepaniuc 3,600 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 238 euros (EUR) at the time) and MDL 1,440 (the equivalent of EUR 93 at the time) respectively. It also ordered the newspaper to issue an apology within fifteen days. The defendants were also ordered to pay the court fees.
10.  The applicants appealed against this judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the first-instance court had totally disregarded their arguments. The articles had reported in fact on letters and statements of third parties, while the final conclusions had been mere value judgments. They had acted in good faith and verified the information contained in the statements of the third parties. One of the sentences found to be defamatory by the first-instance court had not even been included in the articles.
11.  On 3 April 2004 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law; however, that appeal was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 11 June 2003.